Friday, July 12, 2013

On the ground: In New Delhi

(This is a chapter from the latest Index on Censorship magazine, published by Sage. Links below)

From moral policing to commercialism, India has its fair share of free expression dilemmas. Mahima Kaul reports on the challenges faced by journalists, protesters and artists

As India marks its 66th year as the world’s largest
democracy, it must pay more attention to freedoms it accords its
citizens
– particularly beyond the ballot box. Increasingly,
the issue of freedom of expression, or the lack of it, has often fallen
under the radar due to a range of other concerns,
from corruption to poverty to communal clashes. But with a steadily
growing
middle class and some recent high profile cases
commanding international attention, it’s clear that free expression in
India
is becoming increasingly important for journalists
and activists, as well as for those simply wanting to voice their
opinions
publicly.

The first challenge lies within the media
industry itself, and the direct threat it poses to journalists. In 2012,
media watchdog
website the Hoot reported that 39 journalists had
been either assaulted, harassed or threatened that year; five were
killed.
One journalist was reporting on the activities of
Hindu fundamentalist groups when he was attacked, while another was shot
dead covering a rape protest in the state of
Manipur. Charges of sedition have been levied against journalists who
upset powerful
politicians and, most famously, against cartoonist
Aseem Trivedi, who lampooned corrupt politicians in a local paper.

However, a new trend has emerged, that of
targeting the ordinary social media user who posts comments that
criticise or voice
active opposition to the powers that be. Indian
civil society has been up in arms about the use of the loosely-worded
Section
66A of the Information Technology Act (2000), which
has made it possible for citizens to face arrests for status updates
and
even ‘liking’ someone else’s status.

Recently, the news media has tended to
function less like a watchdog of democracy and more like a commercial
vehicle. The
diffusion of paid news into the bloodstream of the
media has made it virtually impossible for the average person to
distinguish
between planted stories and actual reporting. The
malaise is so deep that the Election Commission of India monitors state
and national elections to ensure that
advertisements are clearly marked as such. In the case of television,
most news channels
serving communities outside of the bigger cities
opt for hours of panel discussions instead of actual reporting of facts,
citing, as an editor once put it, ‘the tyranny of
distance’ as the reason.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority (TRAI) of
India is now also looking to reform the way Television Rating Points
(TRPs) are
measured in the country, as they feel the current
system lacks credibility and accuracy. This, they hope, will lead to a
better
idea of what people are actually watching in India.
TRAI has also recently enforced a long-ignored guideline stipulating
that
channels (including news channels) can only
broadcast up to 12 minutes of advertising per hour. At the moment,
advertisements
can exceed 30 minutes within an hour’s worth of
broadcasting, leading to an imbalanced media delivering customers to
advertisers
instead of actually delivering impartial news to
citizens. Unsurprisingly perhaps, broadcasters insist they need the
advertising,
as it is their main source of revenue.

Another challenge to free expression in
India is disingenuous content, which limits honest and open discourse.
Media observers
often harshly criticise the Indian media for
purposely putting forth ‘rabble rousing’ content to attract viewers.
This also
means that any moderate voices in these discussions
are drowned out for the sake of ‘good’ TV. This trend was obvious in
the
aftermath of the December 2012 New Delhi rape case,
which received international attention. People around the country were
shocked and horrified after a young woman was gang
raped on a privately-operated bus and left to die of her horrific
injuries;
civil society activists organised massive street
protests and demanded stricter laws to protect women. News anchors on
national
news channels such as Times Now and Headlines Today
gave prominent screen time to those who proposed death or castration as
punishment for the alleged rapists, drowning out
other voices that called for reform and caution against taking extreme
positions.

But one of the biggest challenges to free
expression in India is society at large. There is a long,
well-established tradition
of moral policing for political gain. Fringe
political parties across the country pick up on and adopt a number of
issues,
especially westernisation and modernisation, as
attention-seeking tools to garner support. Shops selling Valentine’s Day
cards
or bars serving alcohol to young people, and even
young couples enjoying a lazy afternoon in a public park, are routinely
harassed by organised mobs. Some journalists, like
the Mangalore-based Naveen Soorinje, have spoken out about how the media
is often complicit in this vigilantism, colouring
their stories in order to side with moral policing. One headline praised
groups engaged in ‘rescuing’ smokers from dingy
bars.

Index has previously reported on village
authorities banning women from using mobile phones on similar grounds,
giving the reason
that modernisation is essentially linked to immoral
activities. The logic is shared by many, including a former minister
who
supported the move, saying, ‘What are the girls
missing without mobile phones? Did our mothers and sisters die without
mobiles?’
The attitude betrays an inherent suspicion of the
right to freely express oneself, even over the phone.

Some Indian politicians give ample space
to fringe groups, calling for censorship of books, fine art and films.
The most famous
example of this sort of bowing to pressure was the
case of the Jaipur Literary Festival, where Salman Rushdie cancelled his
appearance in 2012 because the state government
could not guarantee his safety. Countless other art shows, films and
books
have been targeted by political groups, while the
governments of the day have preferred to pander to them by cancelling
events
rather than vowing to keep the artists safe. For
example, Eve Ensler’s Vagina Monologues was cancelled in Mumbai in 2012 after groups protested against its adult content.

If the precious right of freedom of
expression is not protected, the ultimate fallout is self-censorship.
Many people, including
filmmaker Ashvin Kumar, have spoken about how
artists often prefer to play it safe rather than risk being targeted for
challenging
the status quo. This is a disturbing thought, and
certainly signifies how vulnerable people feel in India.

In a country that suffers from a range of
ongoing political, social and cultural challenges, free expression is
often seen
as an unnecessary indulgence. But, in recent years,
with some parts of the media catering specifically to the growing
middle
class – a group of people that, in many ways, does
not have to deal with some of the problems found at other levels of
society
– free speech has emerged as a significant and
prominent concern, a right that must be protected. Going forward, it is
crucial
that both the Indian government and the media find a
balance between their political and financial interests and the right
to free expression.

1 comment:

On freedom of speech, let's just put it this way: the most important stuff that needs to be said CANNOT openly be said anywhere in the world (so it's not just India that is uptight). This is the role of art, saying the unsayable.

Every artist must find a way to say it in a way that it can possibly/obliquely be said, even if this means letting it open to varied interpretations (oh-oh)as a price for plausible deniability (safety).

That makes life difficult for a writer. Because if you write fiction that has an artistic aim, your work needs to be accessible to a reasonably large number of readers while also fuzzy enough to keep the truly novel part above the heads of clods.

Also, one needs to judge when such a work can find a publisher at all [and let's be frank, real freedom is rarely ever accorded to stuff that doesn't fit in]. So, no, let's not pretend freedom-of-speech is threatened only at the odd literary festival etc. There has never been much to begin with.